Court of International Trade activity

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended its decision on remand to not apply partial adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube, claiming that the exporter was "fully cooperative," having made multiple attempts to get cost information from an unaffiliated supplier. The government said Commerce couldn't find enough evidence to show that the potential leverage Garg Tube could exert over the supplier supports the use of AFA (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

The U.S. agreed to refund Section 232 duties that exporter ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada paid on its steel bars and rod imports, the parties said in a Sept. 20 stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade. The parties said the 47 entries at issue across seven cases brought by the company qualify for exclusion to the duties granted by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada v. United States, CIT # 21-00038).

In a 131-page brief before the Court of International Trade, the U.S. responded Sept. 20 to claims by plaintiffs that its circumvention finding regarding Vietnamese hardwood plywood was flawed. It said again that the Commerce Department’s decision to not pick a mandatory respondent was fair and that adverse facts available had been correctly applied to 20 exporters (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

A German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials responded Sept. 20 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to a U.S. claim that the Commerce Department's decision to calculate certain of the exporter’s production costs for a review using the items' sales values was rational because the figures “came from Dillinger’s own books and records” (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

The U.S. on Sept. 23 told the Court of International Trade an exporter "confuses statutory schemes" when it claims that past negative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations shield against anti-circumvention findings on the same goods from the same countries. Defending the Commerce Department's circumvention findings of the AD/CVD orders on circular welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes from China, India and South Korea, the government said exporter SeAH Steel Vina Corp. conflated the criteria for AD/CVD investigations with those for circumvention inquiries (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol # 23-00256).

The Court of International Trade granted Sept. 20 an importer’s consent motion to stay for 180 days proceedings brought against it by the U.S. The importer said in its motion, filed Sept. 18, that the parties were working to settle the case, which alleges the importer dodged antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings by misclassifying its entries (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).

The Court of International Trade held oral argument Sept. 19 in a case alleging that CBP wrongly detained an entry of weight loss dietary supplements for almost a year (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The U.S. and exporters led by Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited told the Court of International Trade on Sept. 19 that they reached a settlement in a suit on the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India (Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00512).

The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on Sept. 18 that CBP seized an entry of 7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone at issue in a suit brought by importer UniChem Enterprises (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).